Monday, January 14, 2013

Seattle's Garfield High School Opts Out of MAP Test

There are occasions when I think that if standardized tests were
allowed to make up only a very small component of a teacher's
evaluation, they wouldn't be so bad. Usually those occasions last only
briefly. On the surface, incorporating current standardized tests into
teacher and school evaluation may seem rational (depending on your
perspective). But the further you wade into what we know about the
limited efficacy of these tests to measure student achievement, and the
unique problems associated with unique tests, the more this notion
becomes unstable, and eventually collapses.

Enter Garfield High
School in Seattle. Its teaching staff has gained international attention
for unanimously voting (with four abstentions) to refuse to continue
using the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test (see stories here and here), despite the district's ongoing expectation that it do so.

Sarah
Heller McFarlane of Rethinking Schools recently emailed out the letter
Garfield teachers wrote to SPS outlining their rationale. I submit it
here as evidence for why standardized tests, particularly like this,
have no business being included in student, teacher, principal, school,
or district evaluation.

December 21, 2012

To Whom It May Concern:

We,
the Garfield teachers, respectfully decline to give the MAP test to any
of our students. We have had different levels of experiences with MAP
in our varied careers, have read about it, and discussed it with our
colleagues. After this thorough review, we have all come to the
conclusion that we cannot in good conscience subject our students to
this test again. This letter is an objection to the MAP test
specifically and particularly to its negative impact on our students.
Here are our reasons:

Seattle Public School
staff has notified us that the test is not a valid test at the high
school level. For these students, the margin of error is greater than
the expected gain. We object to spending time, money, and staffing on
an assessment even SPS agrees is not valid.

We
are not allowed to see the contents of the test, but an analysis of the
alignment between the Common Core and MAP shows little overlap. We
object to our students being tested on content we are not expected to
teach.

Ninth graders and students
receiving extra support (ELL, SPED, and students in math support) are
targets of the MAP test. These students are in desperate need of MORE
instructional time. Instead, the MAP test subtracts many hours of class
time from students’ schedules each year. If we were to participate
this year, we would take 805 students out of class during 112 class
periods. The amount of lost instructional time is astounding. On
average students would EACH lose 320 minutes of instructional time.
This is over 5 hours of CORE class time (language arts and math) that
students are losing. We object to participating in stealing
instructional time from the neediest students.

In
an appeal of the Board’s 2010 decision to renew the MAP contract, a
parent group raised concerns about the negative impact of this test “on
non-English speakers, Special Education students, and minority and low
income children.” These concerns were never addressed nor were the
claims refuted. Imagine a native Somali student with limited English
skills, sitting in front of a computer taking an evaluative reading test
that will no doubt be confusing and overwhelming to the student. The
test is supposed to determine the student’s reading level, but without
taking into account the student’s language challenge or the student’s
limited time in the United States, which makes it almost impossible to
understand the context of some passages. For these students and our
students with IEPs, the test does actual harm. The students feel stupid
yet are being forced to take a test that has NO benefit to them or
their educational goals. We object to a test that may violate the
rights of groups of students for whom schooling already constitutes an
uphill battle.

In addition to students
losing class time to take the test, our computer labs are clogged for
weeks with test taking and cannot be used for other educational
purposes. For example, students who have a research project no longer
have access to the computers they need to further their exploration into
their research topic. This especially hurts students without computers
at home. We object to our educational resources being monopolized by a
test we cannot support.

We see that
our students do not take the test seriously as they know that it will
not directly impact their class grade or graduation status. They
approach it less and less seriously the more times they take it.
Therefore, we see achievement scores go down after instruction. We
object to spending scarce resources on a test that is peripheral to our
students’ education.

The MAP test was
originally introduced by then superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson while
she was a board member of the Northwest Evaluation Association, the
company that sells the MAP. When Dr. Goodloe-Johnson was fired, the MAP
somehow survived the housecleaning. We object to having to give a test
whose existence in our district is the result of scandal.

Even
the NWEA itself, the parent company to MAP, has advised districts to
carefully restrict the use of the test and its results. NWEA also
cautions to ensure 100% random selection of students enrolled in any
course if the test is used for evaluation and to take into consideration
statistical error in designing evaluation policies. NWEA says that
problems become “particularly profound at the high school level.” None
of these or other criteria urged by NWEA has been met. We object to
being evaluated by a test whose author suggests extreme caution in its
use and warns against valid legal action if the test is used in
personnel decisions.

The Seattle
Education Association passed a resolution condemning the MAP test that
reads, “Whereas testing is not the primary purpose of education…Whereas
the MAP was brought into Seattle Schools under suspicious circumstances
and conflicts of interest…Whereas the SEA has always had the position of
calling for funding to go to classroom and student needs first…Be it
Resolved that…the MAP test should be scrapped and/or phased out and the
resources saved be returned to the classroom.” We object to having to
give it after such an opinion from our collective voice has been
registered.

We are not troublemakers nor do
we want to impede the high functioning of our school. We are
professionals who care deeply about our students and cannot continue to
participate in a practice that harms our school and our students. We
want to be able to identify student growth and determine if our practice
supports student learning. We wish to be evaluated in a way so that we
can continue to improve our practice, and we wish for our colleagues
who are struggling to be identified and either be supported or removed.
The MAP test is not the way to do any of these things. We feel
strongly that we must decline to give the MAP test even one more time.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

I'm a national board certified teacher of language arts and social studies at the Academy of Citizenship and Empowerment in the Highline School District, just south of Seattle, WA. My students come from extremely diverse backgrounds.
This is my ninth year teaching and fourth at my current school. I previously taught in New York City; Washington, DC; Renton, WA; and Knoxville, TN.